This blog addresses the fatal flaw at the core of capitalism as a system of human psycho-socio-political-economic collective self-reproduction, a flaw which ultimately renders it a self-DIS-organizing, self-destroying system -- as is becoming increasingly evident. It also details the successor system to capitalism, the new system that represents the higher, positive way forward for humanity: Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, or EQUITISM.

The Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] ‘‘‘Psychohistorical-Dialectical
Equations’’’ were designed, by the General Council of F.E.D., to create a ‘Time-Vault of
the Future’, by means of a ‘meta-planetarium projector’, -- named the ‘‘‘F.E.D. Prime Radiant’’’, to project
3-D holographic representations of the solution-scenarios of this system of
“simultaneous” 'dialectical meta-equations', and of their scenario-valued variables, for future values
of their time-variables, i.e., to algorithmically ‘pre-construct’
dialectical-mathematically-generated richly-determinate imagery for the future
history expected per these equations.

All but one of these seven equations utilize the ‘Dyadic
Seldon Function’ formulation of dialectical ontological progressions [ = of [revolutionary new]
kinds-of-being progressions], a function which
was defined earlier in this series, and which is also defined via the following
link –

I have listed, below, this system of seven dialectical
equations, which are to be solved ‘‘‘simultaneously’’’ for the new ontology
possibly emergent during the time period, tx [denoting the generic ‘‘‘epoch’’’ of the dialectical
progression denoted by x] of the future value of
that time-period
variable which is to be solved-for.

The versions of the F.E.D.
‘‘‘Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equations’’’ rendered and partially explicated further
below, are all rendered in the rule-based ideographical algebraic language-system
of the F.E.D. “First Dialectical Arithmetic
/ Algebra”, denoted by NQ_.

The nine core algorithms, rules, or “axioms” of this
language, presented earlier in this series, are also available via the
following links –

-- and are also summarized, via largely ideographical symbolization, in the following '*.jpg' image --

The versions of these equations that are used by the
‘dialectical psychohistorians’ of the F.E.D. General Council, and that would be capable of driving the ‘‘‘F.E.D. Prime Radiant’’’, are
formulated in a higher, richer dialectical language than that of the NQ,
purely-qualitative algebra used here – a language that arises later in the
dialectical, ‘ideo-ontological’ progression-presentation of the F.E.D. systems of dialectical
language.

Needless to say, this
dialectical language is one of the ‘quanto-qualitative’, rather
than one of the "purely"-qualitative, dialectical languages that arises in that
progression.

We do not [yet] publicly disclose the rules-system of that
dialectical language.

The optimal
historical timing of its disclosure is itself a matter for the most delicate
psychohistorical-dialectical calculation.

However, immediately below, I give a summary description of the early
dialectical language systems in the order that they are covered in that
dialectical-systematic presentation, a presentation which we can summarily
model by a ‘Dyadic Seldon Function’-based dialectical equation, also formulated
in the NQ
dialectical language.

The generic [unspecified; unsolved] ontology symbols of
the NQ
dialectic are NQ={q1,q2,q3, …}.

The axiomatic system that governs the
'algorithmics' of theseNQ‘meta-numbers’ is denoted byNQ_.

The notational conventions adhered to herein, to the
extent that the typographical limitations of this medium allow, are summarized
here --

In the sequel, we use the symbol ‘=’
to stand in place of the phrase “is equal to, by definition”.

The underscored mnemonic symbols stand for ‘dialectical
meta-numbers’ – i.e., for purely-qualitative values that operate, arithmetically
and algebraically, according to the F.E.D.‘Fundamental Rule of Dialectical Logic’,
a rule that was proven deductively here, from the NQ_
axioms, previously in this series. We give that proof here again, below, for ease of reader reference --

The following image presents the generic version of the E.D.
standard 'dialectogram' formats which we will apply herein to support
our readers' in visualizing the dialectical processes encoded by the
various 'psychohistorical-dialectical equations' presented in this text,
with emphasis on the firsttriad encoded in / predicted by / reconstructed by each such 'dialectical equation' --

The above-diagrammed genericdialectical interpretation of the first three of the NQ ‘meta-natural meta-numbers’ as a 'dialecticaltriad', can be extended, for the fourth of these NQ ‘meta-natural meta-numbers’, and beyond, as indicated in the following tableau --

It should also be noted, at the outset, that the kind of 'dialecticaloppositenesses' encountered in, and modeled, by the F.E.D. Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equations, is not the kind, named, by Charles Muses, "'Annihilatory'''oppositeness, nor the kind that he called "Complementary"oppositeness, but is, primarily, of the kind called, by Karl Seldon, 'Supplementary'oppositeness --

Since all of the ‘F.E.D.
Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equations’ are equations of ‘psychohistorical
dialectics’, we use the assignment symbol ‘[--->’ to indicate an association of an
unassigned, unsolved, or “generic” NQ ‘meta-natural meta-number’ to
a specific, mnemonic [psycho]historical-dialectical ontological category symbol
[“kind of being” symbol], within a given [psycho]historical-dialectical
‘[psycho]physio-ontological’ progression:

The <<Kapital>>-relation as a human[oid]-social
relation of production<--->K [---> q16

However, for ‘pure idea-systems’, and for their presentational
‘ideo-ontological’ dialectical categorial progressions, we use the assignment
symbol, or solution symbol, ‘[---)’, to indicate such associations,
e.g. --

The beginning – or «arche’» -- category and system of
‘ideas-ontology’ in the F.E.D.presentational-dialectical progression for the F.E.D. axioms-systems of dialectical
arithmetic, is the system of the arithmetic of the “Natural” Numbers,
N={1, 2,
3, …}, as formulated by only
the four Peano postulates that are expressible in “first order” formal symbolic
logic [“first order” logic here means a language of formal logic that makes
assertions about individual “Natural Numbers” only, but not
about qualities shared by multiple “Natural
Numbers”, such as “Even-ness”, “Odd-ness”, “Prime-ness”, “Composite-ness”,
etc.].

We denote that “first-order”
axioms-system of arithmetic by N_.

It is a dialectical arithmetic only in a
‘pre-vestigial’, implicit, quantitative-only sense, in that the Peano successor
function, s, is a degenerate, purely-quantitative «aufheben»
operation:

s(n) = n + 1, given an n in N.

The algorithm that generates this systems-progression is termed, by us, a
‘meta-model’, because a “model” would cover only a single system, whereas this
progression contains a potentially infinite multitude of
successive systems.

We use the term ‘‘‘evolution’’’ to describe the
[self-]developmental dynamics within a single system, whether it
be a natural, physical system [‘physio-system’], a human ideas-system
[‘ideo-system’] such as a mathematical axiomatic system, or a human
psychohistorical system – i.e., an ‘ideo-physio-system’ – such as a human
socio-economic system. ‘‘‘Evolutions’’’ are transitions between historically
successive states within a single system.

We therefore use the term ‘meta-evolution’ to describe the [revolutionary] transitionsbetween
systems – from historical predecessor system to historical successor
system -- which involve irruptions of new ontology.

The ‘Dyadic Seldon Function Meta-Model’ of the F.E.D. Method of Presentation [ = ‘Meta-Systematic
Dialectic’] for this progression of dialectical-mathematical systems,
is therefore –

(N_)^(2^s)

-- wherein s denotes a Whole
Number variable, W={0, 1,
2, 3, … }, representing/counting the cumulative number of steps
into the exposition. Four steps in,
i.e., for step s = 3,
we solve this ‘meta-model’ as follows:

(N_)^(2^3)
= (N_)^(8)
=

a non-amalgamative
sum of 8 ‘idea-ontological’ categories, each
connoting a qualitatively different, ‘ideo-ontologically’ different dialectical-mathematical
axioms-system--

N_+NQ_+NU_+NM_+NqMN_+NqMQ_+NqMQN_+NA_[---)

q1 + q2 + q3 + q4 + q5 + q6 + q7 + q8.

These first eight axioms-systems of dialectical arithmetic
can be summarily described as follows, using the ‘pure ideo-systems’ assignment
symbol, ‘(---)’—

N_(---)Thesis system of standard natural numbers arithmetic
in 1st order specification, as purely quantitative algebra.

6.The Meta-Equation of the Meta-Evolution of Planetary Human[oid]ities.

7.The Meta-Equation of The Psychohistorical Dialectic of the Dialectic Itself.

In terms of the Encyclopedia Dialectica standard notation, all seven of these 'psychohistorical-dialectical meta-equations' share the following common form --

Of course, all seven of
these ‘psycho-historical dialectical meta-equations’ cohere in the context of
the F.E.D.‘‘‘DialecticalTheory of
Everythingmeta-equation’’’, or ‘Dialectic of Naturemeta-equation’,
for the total cosmos as presently known to Terranhumanity.

They all describe,
categorially, a ‘sub-universe’
of that, our total,
universe:they describe aspects of what has
gone on, what is going on, and what -- ‘predictedly’ -- will
go on, ‘‘‘inside’’’ the presently most-advanced term of that ‘‘‘Everything
meta-equation’’’, i.e., in the term representing the ontological category of
‘planetary human [meta-]societies’, such as our own.

This overarching,
singular ‘‘‘Dialectic of Nature’’’‘meta-equation’ is not defined, in our terminology, as
a ‘psychohistorical-dialecticalmeta-equation’ in the same, strict, direct sense, that
the seven equations named above are termed, by us, ‘psychohistorical-dialecticalmeta-equations’.

That is because this
overarching, singular ‘‘‘Dialectic of Nature’’’‘meta-equation’ does notdirectly address [human-]Phenomic, ‘‘‘memetic’’’,
‘psycheic’ matters -- collective-psychological, ‘intersubjectively-objective’, ‘psychohistorical material’, until
its tALL=8th
epoch, cosmological epoch8, and beyond, and thus until its 256th category-term, h [which connotes the
‘cosmo-ontological category’ of [planetary] human[oid]
societies], and beyond [or, arguably, incipiently, until its tALL=7th epoch, cosmological epoch7, and thus until its 128th
category-term, l, which connotes the ‘cosmo-ontological
category’ of proto-language-based
animal societies, and beyond].

However, indirectly, this ‘‘‘Dialectic of Nature’’’‘meta-equation’ is also at least a ‘HALF-psychohistorical’ ‘meta-equation’.

It is so because the
analogies, the metaphors, the terms-of-reference, the names, the categories,
the concepts in which any human theory -- including in
which any human “Theory ofEverything” -- are framed, grasped, and transmitted
can, only belong to the human language, to the human
«mentalité»
[inescapably also including the human ideology], to the human
‘‘‘memes-pool’’’, to the human, collective mind, and hence, to the terms of the
collective human, cognitive and affective‘psyche-ology’ -- in short, to the terms of the total ‘human
Phenome’
that is extant, and that is ambient, in the time, and in the place, in which
that theory arises.

For this ‘‘‘Dialectic of Nature’’’ as a
whole, as THE whole
-- as the Totality
of our «Kosmos»
to the degree that we presently know it, and for its “highest”, most general
ontological categories [for the E.D. domain x=ALL], with ‘tALL’
denoting a “Natural’’ number, i.e., from the set --

{1, 2, 3, ...}

-- and with tALLalso counting, and labeling [numerically, cardinally ‘‘‘naming’’’], the epochs of cosmological-ontological
revolution, we have --

ALL>-|-<tALL­= ALLnvtALL­

-- such that ‘n’
connotes the ‘physi[c]o-ontological category’ of the ‘‘‘sub-nuclear’’’ “particles”, that is, of the ‘‘‘non-composite bosons’’’ [e.g.,
excluding the mesons], and of the ‘‘‘non-composite
fermions’’’ [e.g., the quarks and the leptons, excluding, e.g., the proton,
neutron, and hyperon composite “particles”], and such that v=2 or 3, and such that ‘tALL’, with its ‘ALL­’
‘‘‘suffix’’’ component, indicates that the “independent” variable , tALL,
takes on, successively,
the value 1, then the value 2,
then the value 3, then 4, then, ..., consecutively.

For tALL=8, i.e.,
for cosmological epoch8, per this ‘‘‘equation-model’’’, the RHS [Right-Hand
Side] of this equation, when the 8-fold
‘‘‘self-involution’’’ [‘‘‘self-multiplication’’’] of ALLn
is carried out, generates a ‘cumulum’ of 28=256 category-symbols for the v=2 version of this ‘‘‘equation-model’’’
--

This ‘meta-model’ still
falls short of being ‘adialecticalmodel of everything nowknown’,
in particular, because it does not yet explicitly address so-called “Dark
Energy” and “Dark Matter”, which are, it must be said, at present, just barely
entering into the ‘now known’. Nonetheless, Foundation researchers are well underway in the
work of bringing these new ‘‘‘matters’’’ -- and these new ‘‘‘energies’’’ --
into the very heart of this ‘meta-model’, via a new, deeper «arché», and a new, deeper,
‘firstmeta-«physis»’.

To afford you a feeling
for this ‘ALL
super-domain’ ‘dialectical Totality model’, the
image below expands upon our ‘‘‘Dialectic of
Nature’’’ as a whole model, or ‘DialecticalTheory ofEverything[known]’
model, for just the first triad of the v=3 version: for just itsALLt3=1‘dialectical equation’ --

The version of the ‘‘‘DialecticalTheory of
Everythingmeta-equation’’’, or ‘Dialectic of Naturemeta-equation’,
which is specified, and illustrated, in the next two images, below, is an
abbreviated, “lumped«arché»”
version of the Encyclopedia Dialectica‘DialecticofNaturemeta-model’
for the ontological-categorial content of the totality of the known universe just described above.

The version described
below “lumps together” the ontological categories of the ‘pre-/sub-nuclear’ “particles” versus of the ‘nuclear
pre-/sub-atomic’ “particles”, or of the ‘‘‘non-composite bosons and fermions’’’ versus of
the ‘‘‘composite bosons and fermions’’’,
into a single starting
category, or «arché»
ontological category, that of the ‘pre-atomic’
“particles” [bosons and fermions, non-composite and composite alike].

Its ‘meta-equation
meta-model’ is --

ALL>-|-<tALL­= ALLr2tALL­

-- and, for tALL=7, i.e., for cosmological epoch7, per its ‘‘‘equation-model’’’, the RHS [Right-Hand
Side] of its equation, when the 7-fold ‘‘‘self-involution’’’ [‘‘‘self-multiplication’’’] of ALLr is carried out, generates a ‘cumulum’ of 27=128
category-symbols for this, v=2, version of
this ‘‘‘equation-model’’’ --

The first triad of this reconstructed, historical'<<speci>>-ation' ofthe historical progression of the 'ideo-ontological categories' / kinds of human Ideologies\Knowledges in this 'psychohistoricaldialectic' of humanIdeologies\Knowledges Form[ation]s [using the Marxian definition of "Ideology"], can be depicted as follows --

II.The Equation of Human-Social Forces
of Production Meta-Evolution.

The deeper/earlier reaches
of the ontology of the cosmos become accessible, for human Appropriation,
as energy Resources, in the reverse
order of their formation, and, as such energy Resources, form the
core of the Marxian “social forces of production”.

We are using the term “energy Resources”
here in a more concretely determinate, more specific, less ahistorically abstract,
less reductionist sense of the term ‘‘‘energy’’’ than is usually the case in contemporary
discourse.

d.
Key categories from the first sixteen categories of ‘theexistential self-forceof human society’ -- of ‘human-societal self-reproductive
self-force’ -- can be summarily described as follows, using the ‘historical-systems’ assignment symbols, ‘<--->’
and ‘[--->’
--

·F.E.D.‘tachyonic meta-phase’ superluminal interstellar-drive design-hypothesis, as described
elsewhere, in other Foundation blogs.

The first triad of this reconstructed, historical'<<speci>>-ation' ofthe historical progression of '''historically-<<speci>>-fic''' [cf. Marx] historical-<<species>> of the human "social forces of production" [cf. Marx]'psychohistoricaldialectic'can be depicted as follows --

Models Specification --

III.The Equation of Human-Social Relations
of Production Meta-Evolution.

c.Solution to epochtr= 4:

d. Key
categories from the first sixteen categories of human social relations of societal self-re-production can be summarily described as follows, using the
‘historical-systems’ assignment symbols, ‘<--->’ and ‘[--->’ --

The first triad of this reconstructed, historical'<<speci>>-ation' of the '''forms of human-social intercourse''' [cf. Marx and Engels, The German Ideology] '''historically-<<speci>>-fic''' [cf. Marx] historical-<<species>> of this 'psychohistoricaldialectic', can be depicted as follows --

e.
Categories of interest, observed as having, or predicted to, irrupt into
possibility in later epochs, tr>4
--

d. Key categories from the
first sixteen categories of human social/‘meta-geological’ formation(s)
can be summarily described as follows, using the ‘historical-systems’
assignment symbols, ‘<--->’ and ‘[--->’ --

The first triad of this reconstructed, historical'<<speci>>-ation' ofthe historical progression of '''historically-<<speci>>-fic''' [cf. Marx] historical-<<species>> of human society in this 'psychohistoricaldialectic'of '''human-social formation(s)''' [cf. Marx], can be depicted as follows --

e.
Categories of interest, observed as having, or predicted to, irrupt into
possibility in later epochs, tm>4
--

VI.The Equation of the Meta-Evolution of Planetary Human[oid]ities.

This predicted, next-epoch '<<gene>>-ation' of delta-h = y, the next new 'self-hybrid' <<genos>> of 'cosmo-ontology',can be depicted as follows --

d. The
two ‘[psycho]physio-ontological categories’ for this meta-evolution of planetary human[oid]ities
equation, and the three sub-categories of the second-to-emerge into possibility of those categories,
can be summarily described as follows, using the ‘historical-systems’
assignment symbols, ‘<--->’ and ‘[--->’ --

1. Correlating
the different ‘‘‘tempos’’’/temporalities/‘epochalities’ of the sixpsychoHISTORICAL[meta-]equations among the seven [meta-]equations presented above, since, in general, and given that ‘Rt(·)’ denotes a function which converts ordinal timesto real, historical ‘“Real”’times [really, to ‘‘‘Rational-Numbertimes’’’] --

{Rt(tI\K)} ~={Rt(tF)}~={Rt(tR)}~={Rt(tm)}~={Rt(ALLt2)}~={Rt(t#)};

2. Modeling the thus coordinated quantitative
‘epochality’ using “continuous” rather than “discrete” arithmetical models of time, e.g., using time-valueRtnot in W; i.e., more specifically, using
time-valueRtinR | Rin
the set of the “Real” Numbers -- RcontainsRtnot inW;

3.
Re-expressing the ‘quality meta-dynamics’,
or ‘ontologymeta-dynamics’,
of the qualifier-sums
in these “purely”-qualitative, “purely”-ontological[meta-]equations, more
determinately, as ‘‘‘[space-]timevarying’’’ evolution statetrajectory/[self-]controlpath
dynamics, with [‘metafinite’,
ontologically-revolutionary] ‘‘‘singularities’’’, for
time-function-quantifierquantified
state-variables and control-parameters, expressed in the higher, later
dialectical-ideographicallanguages of
combined, dynamicaland ‘meta-dynamical’ [superz-][meta-]systems, by means of ‘singularitysemantification’, resulting from ‘ontologicaland metricalqualifier’‘re-qualification of
“standardly”‘‘‘unqualified’’’,
quantifier(s)-onlydynamical equations [also by division-by-zero‘semantification’& ‘metafinitization’, via theRmu+ axioms for the revolutionary new mathematical‘ideo-ontology’ of ‘full zero’];

4. Facilitated by 1.
&2. &3.,
solving this system of 7 [meta-]equations ‘‘‘simultaneously’’’;

5. Modeling the ‘inter-mutual’ interactions among
the ontologically distinct
but co-existing actualitiesdescribed by these 7 [meta-]equations, i.e., dialectically modeling the interactions
of the actualitiesdescribed by each such [meta-]equation with the other,
co-extant actualities described by each of theother such [meta-]equations.

6. Deriving a single‘super-meta-equation’,
unifying all 7 of the [meta-]equations presented above.